Popular Outcry: I read books, therefore, books aren't dead!
Well, I found a four leaf clover, therefore all clovers have four leaves.
"I found a four leaf clover! Therefore they aren't extinct." How about that comparison instead?
You keep talking as if poor quality media didn't exist before the internet. Are you kidding me? Ever hear of Ed Wood? He's certainly not a modern creator. Most music from before the advent of the internet was absolutely atrocious. We just don't hear it because no one kept any. Why? Because it was horrible. I'm talking all the way back, back to the 1000's. Even further. Since the beginning of music as a medium. In the 50s it's easier to show, because that's when the music industry was controlled by execs, so literally everyone was playing the same stuff, save a few minor changes. Nowadays, you have anyone uploading their music, but only exec funded stuff and good stuff get out there. And some stuff that's so bad it's good...or so bad you want to torture people with it (I don't get this one...at all...). Some examples of less well known bands that are great: Handsome Boy Modeling School (and anything with Dan the Automator), Cold War Kids, Blackalicious. I can't think of any more right now because the rest I'm thinking of are pretty well known, like Black Keys, White Stripes, Ranconteurs, Gorillaz (like i said, Dan the Automator), etc. etc. Books are just the same. Is there terrible stuff today? Yeah, totally. Is there good stuff? Absolutely. Things weren't better before today, it's just that only the good stuff survived. I mean, the Romans made fart jokes. How about the dreaded video game? Comparing a video game to a book would be stupid. They are two very different mediums. For one, a video game is sooo much more immersive. The story though, let's look at the quality of storytelling and story, shall we? Well, you've got your CoDs and your Halos and your Mass Effects. Bad, mediocre, and good. So that range exists, even in the dreaded video game.
Spell check: seriously? You're ranting about freaking spell check? Not sure if you realize this, but people use "spell check" all the time when writing things on paper too. It's called an editor. People make mistakes. Why not use a tool to help catch things like typos? I haven't been keeping track, but I've accidentally hit keys at least 10 times wrong, and not noticed until spell check noticed I spelled it "havne't" at the beginning of this sentence. Wait, why am I defending this? I mean really, it doesn't need defending.
Okay, now your tests. Turn on the TV and count to jump cuts. I'm....not sure what this is supposed to prove, but okay. I choose Firefly. Hmm, I'm going over a minute between cuts at some points.....is that good or bad? I mean seriously, sicne when is a cut a bad thing? Okay, how about an old movie? Citizen Kane. Opening scene....guy's alone on his deathbed....says "Rosebud".....after he's dead, nurse walks in.....jump to newspaper headlines "final word was Rosebud".....wait, how did they know that? No one was with him! That's some shoddy storytelling if you ask me. Or The Cosby Show, they cut as much as Firefly or any number of shows today. Anyways, you won't get me defending shaky cam. It's horrible. There are very few instances where it is useful. I can think of one: District 9 was a movie shot like a documentary. There was supposed to be a guy holding the camera. And when they had him doing interviews, it was stable, like it was an actual interview. Imagine that? Actually paying attention to detail? I thought that didn't happen anymore? I also won't be defending all works of today. Because I recognize that some are terrible. Given 50-100 years, only the mediocre or better ones will remain. 1000? Only the good ones.
If print isn't dying, why are there less reporters now then ever? Why are newspapers closing down, going to four day a week schedules? Why are TV stations no longer maintaining news teams and only having anchors? They are sub-contracting out their news sources. Multiple stations share the same reporting team in many areas. Why?
Because paper news is outdated. They are adapting. Well, some are. 24-hour news channels are going away, and that's a GOOD THING. Those things killed news. And now that they're going away, we can get the periodic news back, where we only get news that's actually happening, rather than talking about the same thing over and over again. The internet is making that happen. Go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. How many news agencies were there on a national level? There were three broadcasters. Three. Now there are countless, and they have too many reporters. Too many, they aren't doing it because they hate news and language and intelligence, but because they got too big. Yes I'm ignoring newspapers, but I think this illustrates the point better since I'm not looking at multiple variables. Because seriously, there are a ton of variables at play, and where you see an end to intellectualism, I see a blooming intellectual movement. You just need to get away from outdated thinking in order to see it. You know, outdated thinking like "only printed books are viable information". And thinking like only one variable at a time can operate on a system.
*rants on pirates and stuff*
I'm....not even going to touch this. Wow.
And Nan? Thanks for the ninja
Oh, and one last thing.
Every time someone says "language is getting worse/dying/not intelligent/etc.", a kitten is punched. Especially when they are talking about English.
